I should have loved to see Uhuru Kenyatta on the second presidential debate on Monday next week. I have seen copies of two angry letters his campaign team sent to the Media Council, withdrawing him from the debate. I am surprised. I thought they said he came out tops? So what changed?
Uhuru seems to believe the debates were arranged to berate him and undermine his candidacy. Linus Kaikai, in my informed professional view, did a sterling moderation job. He has, however, come in for special whipping. He has been described in appalling idiom in Uhuru’s letters of complaint and exit from the debate. It is a pity, but Kenyans must respect Kenyatta’s rights in this matter.
No matter, these debates are good for Kenya. The execution may be faulty. This is normal with all first efforts. However, does undermining their integrity and boycotting them without compelling reasons reverse our democratic gains?
It is unusual in Africa for presidents and those who aspire to replace them to open themselves up to scrutiny. Indeed, even junior politicians detest scrutiny.
Do they, on the few occasions when they come close to us, want to treat us like a hapless captive audience? They give us a lecture, or read from some prepared script. They frolic away, arrogantly. If you dare ask a question, they get testy.
After the debate of February 11 Onyango Obbo, a respected journalist from Uganda, wrote on Twitter, “These . . . Kenyans, when you are just about to give up on them, they pull up Eastern Africa’s first presidential debate.”
And it was a wonderful debate. The candidates may have been left standing for far too long, as complained of in Uhuru’s letter.
The moderators may have failed to ask the other candidates troubling questions we all thought they would ask. However, this remains a major breakthrough. There was the Prime Minister with his two deputies being professionally cut short in the middle of their address, “I am sorry, your time is up, Sir.” And they would obey. Usually this class lords it over everybody. When they move their lips, you freeze. When they open their mouth, you tremble.
Uhuru is disappointed the presidential debate is different. The kitchen is too hot. He has bolted. As the Americans say, if you cannot take the heat, leave the kitchen. But I am afraid he has bolted out of the wrong kitchen – or has he?
When you seek to operate in public space, I have said before, you cannot afford to be thin skinned. If you want to be our president, you are in our space. You need to assure us we can interrogate your credentials and that you respect our space. You do not want us to think you are intolerant, or hyper sensitive?
The question of whether Uhuru and his running mate William Ruto can discharge duties of the presidency when they are also at The Hague cannot be wished away. I also do not agree that it is a personal predicament, as Kenyatta told the debate. Yes, the trial and the possibility it could end badly for them is a personal predicament. However, how the country runs with an absentee President and his Deputy is a national crisis. You cannot sulk because it has been raised.
But is Uhuru the beneficiary of wrong counsel? His minders misadvised him to skip this important debate. Hopefully the other candidates will go easy on him. Uhuru will look bad enough simply by his sheer absence. In this regard, Uhuru and Raila Odinga looked bad when they failed to turn up at the faiths-led debate on KBC TV this week. It is an indication that you hold everybody in contempt.
Perhaps Uhuru will want to reconsider his position. If he does not, we must exercise the benefit of believing he is running away from something more sinister. Eventually, his broadsides against Kaikai are the excuse rather than the reason.
The plethora of complaint-mail from the TNA Secretariat does not make things better for Uhuru. There has been a lot of moaning from this office – now over S.K. Macharia and Royal Media, CORD and their symbols on the campaign trail . . . When it is not this, it is something about the IEBC itself, or about some innocuous non-event.
This is not just for Uhuru; it is for all the eight people aspiring to rule Kenya. The age of soft options is gone. If you will be our President, you will have to imbue us with the confidence that you are not going to be hyper sensitive.
We want to know we can question the way you are doing things, without attracting your wrath. You will not pick up the gauntlet at every minor taunt. If this is your style, then you should not ask to be the President. Remember it is our presidency. It is not yours.
We expect we can interrogate you in these pages and beyond and still expect the instruments of your State will be fair and just with us.
Elsewhere, Mzee Simeon Nyachae, my good friend, asked the Abagusii to vote for Uhuru, since his father was kind to him. It was time to pay back. He invited the Abagusii to help Uhuru. I thought he should have done it differently? As an elder grateful to those who helped him, he certainly should have acknowledged the fact as he did. But he should also have acknowledged that Raila is a good neighbour – I believe he is.
He should have advised the Abagusii to exercise their freedom, to choose between Uhuru – who is a son to him – and Raila, a neighbour.
More importantly, he should have stressed need for a free, fair and peaceful poll. For my part, I respect Mzee Nyachae for personal reasons.
I therefore rest my case.
The writer is a publishing editor and special consultant and advisor on public relations and media relations
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment